Obama the Delusional

In 2008, Barack Obama ran as many politicians do, with the “I’m on your side, let’s stick it to the man” campaign rhetoric. After 8 years of a generally unpopular president, Americans were sympathetic, believing that Obama’s Alinsky-inspired “hope” and “change” themes were genuine. And to Obama, perhaps they were. But like so many celebrities and superstars, he bought into his own hype. Now, “hope” and “change” are themes that can be associated with the deliverance from Obama’s policies.

The first evidence of Obama’s ignorance to the opposition to him was when he made little, if any acknowledgement of the tea party demonstrations that took place across the country. The organic uprising of ordinary Americans across the country requesting fiscal sanity was simply written off as “astroturf” instead of “grass roots.”

When November rolled around, Democrats suffered major losses in two major governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey. Obama’s press secretary Robert Gibbs claimed that the president was not “watching returns.”

After Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, Obama responded by saying: ”Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into offices. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.” Let’s break down Obama’s assessment. He claims that American voters chose him, a liberal candidate bent on changing the Republican/Bush establishment, then decided they wanted to elect a Republican in one of the more liberal states in the nation because they were sick of the last eight years. How does that begin to make sense?

Surely, Americans are dissatisfied with the status quo, but the status quo is not George W. Bush and the Republicans anymore. It is Barack Obama with a Democrat-controlled congress, a congress that may not be Democratic for much longer.

Recently, Congressman Marion Berry from Arkansas declared that he would not seek re-election. He said he had tried to warn Obama about the upcoming 2010 election, saying that it could be a repeat of 1994, when the Democrats lost both Houses of Congress. Obama replied saying “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.” Is it arrogance that leads Obama to this conclusion, or is it that he has become delusional?

Maybe Obama was right. Perhaps he truly convinced Americans to “stick it to the man.” The only problem is that he is now “the man.”

The Democratic Party: Do They Not Understand What’s Happening?

In November of last year, many Democrats downplayed the gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey. Ever the optimist, Nancy Pelosi even pointed to the Democratic victory in NY-23 as proof that the night of November 3rd was really a triumph for the Democrats instead of a rejection of Obama’s policies. Conventional wisdom among the DNC, reinforced by most polls at the time, supported the idea that Ted Kennedy’s seat would be safely held in the liberal hands  of Martha Coakley. But they were wrong then…and they’re wrong now.

As hesitant as they may be to listen to their sworn enemies at Fox News like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, the Democratic party would do well to pay attention to the advice they have to offer: watch out because the Obama agenda is not popular right now. But yet, the liberal Democrats say he’s not liberal enough. Some moderate and conservative Democrats seem to understand what’s going on, but some still think they can pass a reduced health care bill, essentially a “Diet ObamaCare,” (less fat, but it still leaves a bad taste in your mouth) in order to appease the public.

Remember how Chris Matthews gushed over Obama, talking about a thrill running up his leg whenever he heard him talk? But now, observe this discussion between Chris Matthews & Howard Dean.

In case you’re wondering, I’m loving every minute of this.

And on top of it all, the Democrats want to raise the ceiling on the national debt by $1.8 trillion. When Clinton lost both Houses of Congress in 1994, he moved towards the center and passed wellfare reform and balanced the budget. It appears that the times have changed.

So what’s going on with the Democratic party these days? Have they lost their minds? I understand that the Scott Brown victory has left many of them hysterical, but I can’t say I expected them to react with such lunacy.

My theory is that the euphoria surrounding the Obama victory in 2008 left them starry-eyed and full of unfounded optimism. Finally, they had put forth a formidable candidate that had prevailed after eight long years of George W. Bush. Never mind the fact that John McCain was the absolute worst candidate for the Republican party since Bob Dole. The honeymoon could only last so long.

With a supermajority in Congress and a Democratic president, there should have been no problem passing through some of the legislation that they had always dreamed of, including universal healthcare, the holy grail of the Democratic party. But between the stimulus, the omnibus, the bailouts, cap and trade, and a bloated, expensive healthcare bill, Americans had had enough.

Of course, in spite of recent victories, the GOP still faces an uphill battle considering that they are 9 seats away from breaking even with the Democrats in the Senate, not to mention an even larger deficit in the House. Fortunately, most polls support what those recent victories have already indicated: a wave of conservativism sweeping the country. Harry Reid has been consistently behind his potential GOP challengers. Pat Toomey is currently leading Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania by as much as 9 points. Barbara Boxer is facing a possibly significant challenge in California. Blunt is ahead of Carnahan in Missouri. The GOP candidate for Senate also leads in Ohio and North Dakota. But if Brown’s victory in Massachusetts has taught us anything, polls can change.

However, the fact remains: there’s trouble brewing for the DNC. The possibility of losing the House and Senate looms in their future. All this talk of a Democratic party in decline brings to mind a few buzzwords of the 2008 election: Hope and Change.

Analysis of the Scott Brown Victory in MA

Could anyone have ever dreamed of a more unusual scenario? The seat held by Ted Kennedy for over 40 years has now been replaced by a Republican in Massachusetts.

The Stage was Set

Let’s rewind to 1994. In the midst of a surge sweeping across the nation against the Democratic majority after a Clinton victory in 1992, in Massachusetts, a man named Mitt Romney dared to challenge the lion of the Senate himself: Ted Kennedy. But while Romney managed to lose by the second smallest margin in Kennedy’s nine elections, the score was a 17-point difference: 58 to 41.

By 2004, Romney was governor of Massachusetts. In an effort to avoid a Romney-chosen senator should Senator John Kerry win the White House, the Democratic majority of the Massachusetts state senate passed legislation that would keep the governor from being able to appoint a U.S. Senator until a special election was held.

But in 2009, with a Democratic governor in place, the Democrats reversed the legislation to allow a Democrat to be appointed to replace Ted Kennedy after he died. Before his death, Kennedy had even requested the reversal himself. After Kennedy’s death, Paul Kirk was appointed to replace him. The seat remained in the hands of the Democratic party.

On November 3rd of that year, GOP candidates Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie won the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. Both states had Democratic governors.

That same month in Massachusetts, Democratic candidate Martha Coakley led Republican Scott Brown by as much as 31 points. The Kennedy family endorsed Coakley to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. At that point, it appeared obvious that the seat will continue to be in Democratic control.  After all, in Massachusetts, Democrats outnumber Republicans by as much as 3 to 1. But independents outnumber Democrats in the Bay State. And the hypocrisy of the Democratic party had worn down the respect of their constituents.

The Meteoric Rise of Scott Brown

Through a series of gaffes by Coakley herself, Scott Brown began to rise. Coakley’s numbers started to drop. Whether it was the pointless sparring with Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling or the arrogant and elitist opposition to schmoozing with hockey fans at Fenway Park, Coakley couldn’t seem to keep her mouth shut. If that wasn’t bad enough, her claim that terrorists no longer reside in Afghanistan certainly didn’t buy her any foreign policy points.

But in spite of Coakley’s best efforts to sink her own campaign, it still seemed unlikely that a Republican would be the one to replace Ted Kennedy. However, in early January, a Rasmussen poll revealed that Coakley’s lead narrowed to a single digit margin, albeit a 9 point margin.

In a debate with Coakley, Brown was asked how he could sit in Ted Kennedy’s seat and vote against the healthcare legislation that Kennedy had fought so hard for in his career. Brown responded, “With all due respect, it is not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It is not the Democrats’ seat. It is the people’s seat.”

For some reason, the wind was suddenly at Brown’s back. Perhaps even to the surprise of some Republicans, Brown was gaining momentum. Rasmussen’s next poll had him losing by only 2 points. A Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll had him up by 1. Coakley’s lead was vanishing before her very eyes. In the latter polls of the campaign, it was fully erased, replaced by as much as a 15 point margin of victory for Brown according to PJM/CrossTarget.

On the night of January 19th, Coakley delivered her concession speech. Brown had won 52 to 47.

Is Brown the New Face of the GOP?

Perhaps it’s a bit early to say that Brown is the face for the GOP brand. Typically, Republicans require dues to be paid before its leaders are rewarded with a  higher status. It took Ronald Reagan several years to become a major voice in the party, having lost to Ford in 1976 before winning the nomination in 1980. But if there’s one politician whose own meteoric rise could provide Brown a pathway for an early entry into the presidential fray, it would be none other than Barack Obama.

Obama was  still a state senator in Illinois back in 2004 when he delivered the keynote address to the Democratic National Convention. He was elected as a U.S. Senator later that year. By February 2007, he had declared himself a candidate for the White House.

Brown was also a state senator when he won his U.S. Senate seat. While it may seem the least bit unlikely, Brown could very well be among the names floated for the 2012 GOP nomination.

But even if Brown did find himself amidst the field of candidates in the GOP primary, he would probably not win the support of many social conservatives. While Brown remains to the right of most Democrats on abortion, he is still essentially pro-choice. This would prove to be a rather difficult hurdle to overcome should Brown have loftier aspirations.

An Unusual Victory, A Glimmer of Hope

To say that Brown’s victory is historic would be an understatement. The Bay State has not had a Republican U.S. senator since 1978. Kennedy’s seat hasn’t been held by a Republican since 1952.

If he is seated soon, Scott Brown will bring a screeching halt to the Democratic supermajority in the U.S. Senate, thus being the one man who can dissolve the liberal dream of Obamacare.

It seems evident that there is a trend in America towards the right. A trend towards smaller government. A trend towards fiscal responsibility. A trend against runaway spending. A trend towards transparency in government.

Last night, the people of Massachusetts spoke to the nation about the kind of government they want. If this type of sentiment is displayed there, in the bluest of blue states, it will not end with them.

Finally, it seems that America may be correcting its course.

Palin’s Resignation: Clever Move or Pointless Stunt?

I’m a Sarah Palin fan. Let me just go ahead and state that from the outset of this post. I knew about Sarah Palin before McCain tapped her as his running mate and I was impressed. I thought “a female Republican with the right stance on all (or most) of the issues who has fought corruption even among Republicans in her own state? That’s incredible!”

When McCain became the nominee and began his VP selection process, I was definitely pulling for Mitt Romney, as he had been my favorite candidate during the primaries. However, when he selected Sarah Palin, I was not upset in the least. In fact, I was glad. I felt like she lent some much-needed conservative credibility to an otherwise moderate McCain campaign.

Having said all of that, I believe that Palin’s decision to resign was a poor political move. Many conservative pundits are praising it as a smart and calculated decision that is true to her style, claiming that she is setting herself up for a presidential run in 2012. Certainly, it would give her the freedom to move about the country and build up a nationwide organization like Romney and other candidates are able to do. Sean Hannity is defending her by comparing her to people like Kathleen Sebelius, Rahm Emmanuel and even Barack Obama, all of whom left their jobs to pursue more prominent ones. The only problem is Palin doesn’t have another job secured for her on the horizon…at least not that we know of. Those 3 Democrats did.

Maybe a 2012 presidential run is in the works.  But if such is the case, let me go ahead and tell you what the press and her opponents will say: “if she quit when the pressure got to be too much as governor of Alaska, how can she handle the pressure of the Oval Office?” No matter what the reason for her resignation, that’s a question she will have to answer.

I’d love to believe that this is all part of her grand scheme to be one of the greatest women in American politics and that perhaps when her history is written, this event will be thought of as a wise strategic move on her part. I just don’t see it. At first glance, a large chunk of Republicans already think that it was a bad idea. A new Rasmussen poll shows that 40% of Republicans believe that her resignation has hurt her chances for 2012, compared to 24% who believe that it helped.

My message to the GOP concerning Palin is: don’t give up on her but at the same time, don’t hang your hopes on her alone. Remember when Romney made that comment about how there were more influential Republicans besides Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin (see post Romney vs. Palin)? I think he’s definitely right. There are  more influential Republicans out there. There’s Michele Bachmann, Bobby Jindal, Haley Barbour, Eric Cantor, Tim Pawlenty, and I would even say Ron Paul. We can’t afford to put all our stock in one person.

I truly hope that Sarah Palin is able to spin this whole situation in her favor. Maybe she will. But until she does, I suggest we look elsewhere. We don’t have to abandon her, but we do have other options we need to consider.

Gallup Poll: More Americans are Pro-Life than Pro-Choice

A recent Gallup Poll has found that more Americans are pro-life than pro-choice. I personally don’t find this to be terribly surprising. I’ve always thought that when the choice between the life and the death of an unborn child is on the table, most individuals that value life would logically choose life. And while a CBS poll taken back in 2007 indicated similar results, this is the first time in the history of Gallup’s poll that pro-life has ever overtaken pro-choice.

Pro-Life: 51% Pro-Choice: 42%

The poll found that in most categories, the number of pro-life individuals has increased. Such categories include not only conservatives and Republicans, but also include moderates, Catholics, Protestants, and even those of other religious preferences. Also among Republicans, the amount of pro-choice voters has dropped from 36% in 2008 to 26% in 2009, the lowest it has been in 9 years.

Could it be that the Obama administration’s pro-choice policies are polarizing to the American people? Note the sharp downturn in pro-choice voters from 2008 to 2009: 50% to 42%. That’s quite a drop.

I’m hoping that these trends will continue throughout the elections in 2010 and 2012, except yielding different results than in 2008. America badly needs pro-life leaders to champion the cause of life in the face of an extremely pro-choice Obama administration.

Romney vs. Palin: A Quasi-Rift That Should Not Exist

We’re hearing a lot about division in the Republican party these days. The mainstream media loves to point out how weakened they are due to their back-to-back losses in 2006 and 2008. However, they seem to ignore how Americans are beginning to trend towards Republicans near the close of Obama’s first 100 days according to current Rasmussen polling. At any rate, I find it silly that such squabbling is going on in the GOP. Rush Limbaugh said this. Mitt Romney says that. Sarah Palin says this. Michael Steele says that. It’s childish. Can’t I like all these people and share the majority of their collective viewpoints without having to pit them against each other?

A lot of this stemmed from a CNN interview that Romney had in which he was asked about the fact that Time Magazine’s World’s Most Influential People list only included two Republicans: Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. So in response to that, Romney said “I think there are a lot more influential Republicans than that would suggest.” Many took this as a jab at Palin. I tend to disagree. Keep in mind that the question was about how few Republicans made the list. Romney was simply stating that there should’ve been more that made the list like perhaps Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Eric Cantor, or even Michele Bachmann. So to say this is an attack against Palin is really being a bit disingenuous.

Rush Limbaugh has also attacked Romney and Jeb Bush for conducting their “listening tour,” claiming that instead, they should be conducting a “teaching tour.” Okay Rush, I agree. The American people, by and large, do need to be educated on what Republicans can do (or at least, should be doing) for this country. But isn’t that what you’re on the air for? Would it not be a good to at least listen to the American people and find out why they voted for Barack Obama? Or even better, would it not be good to listen to conservative Americans and find out why many of them didn’t vote for John McCain? I guarantee you that most of the Ron Paul crowd didn’t vote for McCain.

It’s ridiculous for this infighting to be going on. For the most part, we agree on the same basic principles. Granted, I will say that John McCain was definitely not a true champion of those principles and that’s why many conservatives didn’t support him. But we need to band together. There’s no reason for these little skirmishes. Personally, I think a Romney-Palin ticket in 2012 would be a dynamic force that could defeat Obama. Who knows? This could be the biggest kiss-and-make-up since Reagan and Bush in 1980.

 

Romney and Palin campaign for McCain

For example, I think that for the most part, Romney and Palin agree more with each other than Palin and McCain did in 2008. Both are pro-life. Both oppose gay marriage. Both support drilling in Alaska (unlike McCain). Neither of them support the FairTax. Economically, they’re generally the same although Romney is much more experienced. Both of them take strong immigration stances.  I’d being willing to say that they generally line up on the majority of the principles and values that conservatives hold dear. Both of them are worthy of carrying the Reagan banner. So let’s not beat each other up too bad. We’re going to need all the help we can get in 2012.

Thoughts on President Obama’s First Few Days

Most people know what I think of Barack Obama. He’s a liberal Democrat with a record to prove it. So obviously, he and I will disagree on a host of issues. However, I just thought I’d lay out some random observations that I’ve had over the past few days. 

I’m seeing a lot of Bill Clinton in Obama. A lot of his cabinet choices are Clintonian (i.e. Hillary Clinton herself). Like Clinton, I think he, in some ways, tried to campaign as a centrist that reaches across the aisle; not unlike John McCain who did that as a conservative and failed miserably. But I think he will also turn out to be just as liberal as Clinton, if not more so. 

Quite frankly, I see almost a sense of genuineness in Barack Obama. That may come as a shock to those of you who know me. But I get the impression that he truly loves his wife and family. With Bill Clinton, everything about his marriage seemed politically motivated to me. It was like watching two leech-like creatures living in some type of strange symbiotic political relationship. Obama’s not like that at all. If it’s all an act, he’s sure got me fooled. 

As much as I loathe many of the things that President Obama stands for, I have to remind myself that he is in a position of authority. He holds one of the most important offices in the world. As an American, I must respect that office. As a Christian, I must respect and honor his authority. 

But, as Christ commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (Matthew 22:21) and Peter tells us to honor the emperor (1st Peter 2:17), I am also reminded that unlike the first century A.D., we live in a democratic society where people are allowed to choose the highest office in the land. 

You see, Barack Obama would exist with his political stances whether or not people chose to vote for him. There will always be people that hold viewpoints like his. So in the U.S.A., perhaps my frustration should not be with Barack Obama as much as it is the people that voted him into office: the people that were swayed by the sweet notions of “Change You Can Believe In” and the mindless, incessant chanting of “Yes We Can!” 

Honestly, Barack Obama will bring change. That’s a fact. He has already signed an executive order to lift the ban on funding for abortions performed overseas. He has promised to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. Military, which is something that Bill Clinton would not even do. And should it pass, Obama has vowed to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, giving women the right to terminate their pregnancy at any stage.

So, Obama voters, you’re getting your change…and much earlier than I had expected. I must say, I even agreed with the President’s decision to freeze the salaries of White House workers making over $100,000 a year. 

Like I said, I respect the office of the President. I respect the authority that goes with it. I respect President Barack Obama as a fellow human being and as the leader of our great nation. I would even say that his Presidency has already brought a strong sense of optimism to this country. 

But…

I believe that if I have every right to support the good he has brought, I also have the right to oppose the evil that he brings to America. That’s right, I said evil. I believe that the murder of an unborn child for the sake of convenience is nothing but wrong and ungodly. I believe that the practice of homosexuality is unnatural and opposed by God. 

I will not forget what his man stands for. No matter what wonders he works for our country in other areas, and I do truly hope he does, I will not sweep these moral issues under the rug. I will not abandon my principles because some politician managed to win an election based on style over substance, ignorance over issues and eloquence over ideals. 

So as Christ and Peter honored and acknowledged a morally reprehensible Caesar as leader of the land, I honor and acknowledge Barack Obama as President of the United States. But unlike them, I have the opportunity to vote out my leader in four years.

Can You Afford the Obama Gas Hike?

Over the past 4 years, gas prices have risen to absurd levels across the nation. Granted, we generally have cheaper prices than the U.K. does, but it hasn’t been too long since most of us in the USA felt like 2.00 for a gallon of gas was ridiculously expensive. Many would like to attribute this to the Bush administration. Some want to point the finger at oil companies, claiming that their profits have been going up. Still, others would say that catastrophic events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina are the ones to blame.

While certainly some of those factors may have played a part in why our gas prices are so high, most would agree that a large part of our problem is our dependence on foreign sources of oil. This is terribly troubling when you consider that the USA as a nation consumes 25.2% of the world’s oil. But before we start hugging trees and throwing cinder blocks at gas-guzzling SUV’s, we have to keep in mind that there are several other products that are made from petroleum including: ink, crayons, bubble gum, dishwashing liquids, deodorant, eyeglasses, records, tires, ammonia, and heart valves. Needless to say, oil is important for making many different things we make in this country, not just gasoline.

We must understand that while it is very important to reduce our oil consumption and aggressively pursue alternative sources of energy, we still need oil. But instead of getting it from countries that hate us like Iran and Venezuela, we need to have our own, which is why we need to drill for it domestically.

So where does Senator Barack Obama fit into all of this?

Obama claims that the problem is not that gas prices are so high, but it’s that the American people should have had a more gradual adjustment to them. In a way, I could give him the benefit of the doubt in pointing this out. However, when you consider that gas prices have risen faster in the past 6 years than they have in the past 30, I believe that Senator Obama is largely understating the problem.

It is no secret that Senator Obama wants to increase taxes on oil companies. Fair enough. But who really pays for that increase in taxes? Do the oil companies generously agree to pay those taxes without raising the price of gas for the average consumer? Hardly! An increase in taxes on oil companies will definitely increase the price at the pump for you and I.

What about drilling? As I said earlier, we must reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil. In addition to pursuing alternative sources of energy, one of the ways we can acheive energy independence is by drilling here in America. No wonder 67% of Americans support offshore drilling and 64% believe it will reduce gas prices. Besides, basic economic principles teach us that if the supply of oil increases, demand goes down, and therefore the price goes down.

But does Obama support offshore drilling here in America? No.

Sure, it’d be nice to immediately have all hydrogen-powered cars and 100% eco-friendly homes that run on clean energy. And of course, this is definitely the ultimate goal that we all strive towards. But until we are comfortably able to make that transition, we need to keep gas prices low by drilling domestically. We can also pursue alternative sources of energy that are readily available like nuclear power. We simply cannot afford the high gas prices that will result from Senator Obama’s energy plan.

Barack Obama is Pro-Abortion

Contrary to what some may believe about Barack Obama, it is a known fact that he is pro-choice. His record and his platform clearly demonstrate that. There is no sense of ambiguity. There should be no doubt. Barack Obama is a staunch supporter of a woman’s right to take the life of her unborn child.

But in an effort to remove all misconception or any form of doubt you may have, allow me to address Senator Obama’s stance on this topic.

Direct Quotes

This is a direct quote from his website: “[Senator Obama] has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.” From this statement, it’s very clear that Obama stands by Roe v. Wade and does not want it to be overturned.

When speaking about the importance of sex education, he said “look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” I’ll try not to interject too much into this statement, but it seems obvious to me that he considers unplanned pregnancies to be some type of punishment to the mother of the child.

Infanticide in Illinois

I personally find this part of Senator Obama’s record to be extremely troubling. As a State Senator in Illinois, a bill known as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced in 2001. This legislation was designed to protect the lives of infants who were born alive after failed abortions. Obama opposed this measure in 2001 and in 2002, claiming that the language used in the bill could have the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade.

However in 2003, the bill was proposed again, with language that addressed the concern that many pro-abortion groups had about it potentially overturning Roe v. Wade. Obama voted against it again, even after NARAL had dropped their opposition to it. A federal version of this bill containing much of the exact same language passed through the U.S. Senate 98-0 in 2002. Obama claims he would have supported the federal bill, but if actually he stood against the same bill at a state level, can you really trust that statement?

When aborted babies were being born alive and left to die alone in soiled utility rooms and there was legislation proposed in Illinois which would have stopped it, Barack Obama opposed it three times in a row. Fortunately, the bill passed through the Illinois Congress in 2005, after Obama had left to become a U.S. Senator.

The Freedom of Choice Act

Barack Obama has voiced ardent support of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). In fact, he has said that one of the first things he’ll do in office is to sign it into law as soon as it passes through Congress.

Pro-Choice Organizations complain that after Roe v. Wade, many of the federal and state laws that have passed since then have “eroded” the “fundamental right” to abortion. However, they firmly believe that FOCA will ensure abortion rights in spite of the possibility that Roe v. Wade could be reversed. It has been estimated that FOCA would result in 125,000 more abortions per year due to the nullification of certain state and federal abortion laws caused by its passage.

On top of all that, FOCA would allow for taxpayer-funded abortions at any stage of pregnancy. Just imagine our taxes actually paying for virtually every kind of abortion at any time during the pregnancy. If that’s not contrary to the nature of American values, I don’t know what is.

Conclusion

Speaking for myself as a Christian and as a pro-life conservative, I cannot morally condone voting for anyone who supports abortion. But throughout Senator Barack Obama’s career, he has adamantly, by his own admission, supported abortion rights. Not only that, he has supported the right to abortion at practically every stage of a pregnancy. I cannot fathom how anyone who considers themselves pro-life could support a candidate like Senator Obama. If you believe in the sanctity of human life, I strongly urge you to consider this information when you vote on November 4th.

The Eagles, Sheryl Crow and Indy 4

What a week. This will mostly be a departure from the heavily political stuff I usually talk about. Where shall we begin?

On Tuesday, I saw the Eagles in Alpharetta, GA. Despite the rain, hail, thunder, lightning, and tornado sirens that plagued my arrival, I had a wonderful evening with one of the bands I admire most. A lot of people may think that bands like the Eagles should hang it up since they’re in their 50’s and 60’s, but from what I saw, they haven’t lost any steam. These guys rocked and nailed every single song perfectly.

I have immense respect for artists that can do what they do for so long and still do it well. While they didn’t play some of the ones I had hoped for like “Seven Bridges Road,” “Already Gone,” “Those Shoes,” “Heart of the Matter” (even though it’s technically a Don Henley song), and “Get Over It,” they still played some of my all-time favorites like “Hotel California,” “Life’s Been Good (Joe Walsh),” “Heartache Tonight,” “Boys of Summer (Henley),” and a large host of others.

The only real qualm I had with the show was when they played “Dirty Laundry” (amazing Don Henley song) with a backdrop video of clips from Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, and other prominent conservative journalists. Virtually nothing from CNN, Matt Lauer, or Katie Couric could be seen in it, possibly because CNN is based in Atlanta, but more likely due to the political views of the Eagles. I understand if you don’t like Fox News, but at least be a little “fair and balanced,” if you’re going to slam the media.

But despite all of that, I have to say that if you think bands like the Eagles are outdated and irrelevant, you’re probably a hater with poor musical taste in my humble opinion. That’s right, I said hater. 

On Friday night, I saw Sheryl Crow in Birmingham, AL. I’ve always been a fan of her music, which is why I went to her show despite the fear of being assaulted with a barrage of mindless uber-environmentalist liberal nonsense. I have to say, she wasn’t that bad when it came to pushing her political agenda on us. She did say “I’m going to vote for Obama and I don’t want to hear about it,” to which I thought to myself “I’m…….not going to vote for Obama and…….I don’t want to talk about it.” I mean, what am I going to say? “Well, I’m voting for McCain!” No, for several reasons. First, McCain makes me nauseous. Second, if I do decide to vote for him, it’s not something I’d be all that proud of and/or enthusiastic about. Anyway…

Sheryl played a lot of stuff from her new album including “God Bless This Mess,” “Love is Free,” “Gasoline,” and “Out of Our Heads” (which is ironically stuck in my head). And she played some older stuff like “Strong Enough,” “Can’t Cry Anymore,” “A Change Would Do You Good,” “All I Wanna Do,” and “If it Makes You Happy.” She rocks. And she’s gorgeous. She’s in her mid-forties and she could be supermodel. My hat is off to her. She got dumped by Lance Armstrong (what was he thinking?), beat breast cancer, adopted a baby, and can still rock like she’s 25. I don’t care what her political views are. I’d go see her again in a heartbeat. 

Saturday night I went to see “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” I had heard mostly negative reviews from my friends and family that had seen it, but I always want to make a judgment for myself when it comes to movies. I have to say that even though I liked a lot of it, it was generally disappointing. Spielberg needs to move out of a certain genre (those of you who’ve seen it know what I’m talking about). The acting was great, as can be expected considering the cast, but the story was just…silly?It’s hard to put into words. It just wasn’t good.

What a week! I’m tired and I’m off tomorrow for Memorial Day. Being the nerd I am, I’m still hopelessly pining for “The Dark Knight.” Not because I want to see Heath Ledger’s last role, but because Christopher Nolan is an amazing director with an incredible cast. Let’s just hope he doesn’t pull an Indy 4 and waste it all with a poor script, which I highly doubt would happen considering the tangible awesomeness that is “Batman Begins.” Wow, I’m past nerd….I think I’m headed to dork territory. I’d better stop.